Rudy18 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 minutes ago, KVG_DC said: I'll take up an AMA too. I sense a lot of "well the numbers don't seem like outright lies to us here and the math checks, but if something breaks about where that Bingo money went, don't come at us with a lawsuit, bro!" in this letter. Is that an accurate read? I don’t specialize in Government & NFP accounting so there may be a regulation about the specific (mis)use of these types of funds and possible resulting lawsuits, though I can’t say for sure given that we don’t actually know whether the funds were misappropriated or not. Everything could be perfectly fine - just that the accounting manager did a terrible job of maintaining records and evidence - or their stated numbers could be completely off due to fraud or error, there just isn’t evidence to say one way or the other. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy18 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 45 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: The full document is available here https://rct.doj.ca.gov/verification/web/Search.aspx by searching Vanguard Music and Performing Arts; next page click RCT number 009838; next page click Audited Financial Statement 2022. I'm particularly curious about statements regarding cash. I’ll take a closer look at this when I get home from work, I’ve been curious in waiting for this all to be released too. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Amid the DCI Policies and Procedures, one of the triggers for an organizational review is "Signed request by five member representatives for an audit of an organization". If I was the representative for any corps who uses charitable gaming as a legitimate funding source, I would absolutely be one of those five right now. If this is what it smells like, it could bring down far more than just VMAPA bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Amid the DCI Policies and Procedures, one of the triggers for an organizational review is "Signed request by five member representatives for an audit of an organization". If I was the representative for any corps who uses charitable gaming as a legitimate funding source, I would absolutely be one of those five right now. If this is what it smells like, it could bring down far more than just VMAPA bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 4 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: The full doc is 24 pages of CYA. Mostly above my head. I thoroughly understand this part though: Other commentary about internal control override potentialities is also concerning. Again, these aren't technically legal conclusions or opinions, I don't think... but they're pretty #### strong hints... as strong as they can legally make them I'm guessing. Oh, and the firm has an office in Santa Cruz. I miss Santa Cruz. sigh where is the full doc viewable? found the link nevermind Edited January 18 by Jeff Ream 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: where is the full doc viewable? 1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said: The full document is available here https://rct.doj.ca.gov/verification/web/Search.aspx by searching Vanguard Music and Performing Arts; next page click RCT number 009838; next page click Audited Financial Statement 2022. 😞👍🏽 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, Rudy18 said: I am not super well versed in SCV’s financial statements specifically, however some of what RL is saying certainly appears to be true - though he certainly has a negative/pessimistic view - but the issue at hand is that SCV’s accounting records are so bad that it is impossible to verify whether the numbers they are claiming for 2021-2022 are accurate. In most instances where there is a scope impairment due to a lack of sufficient appropriate audit evidence the auditors would choose to deliver a “disclaimer of opinion”, however the missing records cover so much of the organization’s operations and are of such material amounts that Qualified or Adverse are really the only options left. so basically the whole board and previous admin was grossly negligent with possible borderline to way over the line criminality 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 2 hours ago, Rudy18 said: I am an auditor at a public accounting firm and can clarify the accounting lingo and provide some general insights into this report, AMA. Is it a red flag that they couldn't verify cash accounts? That's ... just getting bank statements, no? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 34 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: 😞👍🏽 34 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: 😞👍🏽 thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 I was in accounting for 15 years. This is the first qualified opinion I have ever seen. And yes, it means SCV’s accounting is really ####ed up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts